Christopher Chalklin, ‘County Building in Leicestershire, 1680–1830’, The Georgian Group Jounal, Vol. IX, 1999, pp. 69–85

text © the authors 1999 COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 1680-1830

CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN

n Leicestershire both prison and bridge the consequence of Leicestershire being a relatively Iconstruction were concentrated between 179° small inland county. Certainly in the case of prisons, and 1830. The shire had its gaol in the county town and possibly that of bridges, the county was slow to of Leicester, for debtors, those awaiting trial, and react to growing need, and expenditure when it convicted people awaiting transportation or execu­ came was at first too small. tion, or those serving terms of imprisonment, who The study of sessions’ construction in the 179OS were increasingly numerous from the 1780s. and between 1800 and 1830 is interesting not only There was also a bridewell or house of correction for the number of works but also on account of the in Leicester, and sometimes one or more in other quality of the records. They are among the most towns, housing vagrants or the disorderly for detailed and varied for any county, including several months, work being legally required contracts, tenders and specifications for building, though it was often neglected. bridge plans, accounts and order books. The gaol was extended at the cost of the county in 1686, though not by the justices, and there were then only minor works for a century. After 179° the gaol was rebuilt twice, three houses of correc­ THE JUSTICES AND THE SURVEYORS tion erected, and bridge works were numerous, Between 1786 and 1795 up to 12 justices of the peace though mostly small. attended quarter sessions; thus inJuly 1787 five lay­ men and six clergy.2 The former were landed gentry The population of Leicestershire, 1670-18311 and the occasional peer, the accepted leaders of 1670 c. 60,000 society. The majority of gentry who came most reg­ 1701 79A23 ularly represented families which had owned their 1751 91,649 estates for several generations, either through the 1781 101,613 male or female line. Thus Clement Winstanley 1801 130,081 (d.1808) lived at Braunston Hall, two miles from 1831 197,003 Leicester, which he had inherited in 1771. A Winstanley ancestor had bought the property in The prison building reflected in part the 1649. He was high sheriff in 1774, deputy lieutenant rapid rise of population from the 1780s, which and a commanding officer in the militia, represent­ was especially the result of the development of ing the borough of Leicester in Parliament in the the hosiery industry, and bridge construction was 1790s. He rebuilt his mansion about 1775 and caused by the growth of trade. The late emergence extended his estate.3 Samuel Steele Perkins of county bridge works and the modest size of most (1742-1808) lived at Orton on the Hill, near the bridges erected in the last four decades were partly Warwickshire border, where his property was

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IX 1999 69 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 168O-183O

improved by an enclosure act in 1782 and the (d. 1823) were sons of a Leicestershire^ clergyman rebuilding of the Hall in 1786. The family estates, who had been rector of Knighton and a prebendary including four manorial properties, had been of Lincoln. Robert was rector of Knighton after his bought by an ancestor,John Steele (d. 1675).4 father, 1763-89, and vicar of St Margaret, Leicester, Two justices are of special interest, though they in the same years; he also held the rectory of South were not typical in all respects. The famous live­ Croxton between 1765 and 1770, which he resigned stock breeder Robert Bakewell was a tenant farmer for Wanlip, a worse living, on account of its being who came from a local family. He rented a huge farm nearer Leicester. Robert Burnaby and Winstanley of 440 acres at Dishley near Loughborough between directed the rebuilding of Zouch Bridge in 1789. 1755 and 1795, the farm having been his father’s His brother held the livings of Ashby Folville and before him. ‘The Bakewells had farmed at or near Asfordby, where he was lord of the manor and Normanton-le-Heath for several centuries before patron of the benefice. Robert’s son, Thomas, also one of them moved to Dishley’.5 Charles Loraine held several livings in the course of his career.8 Smith owned the manor of Enderby, three miles Thomas Greaves, who was probably a south-west of Leicester, and the neighbouring Yorkshireman, was rector of Broughton Astley, rectory of Whetstone, which Richard Smith had where he owned the manor and part of the parish in bought in 1695. He was high sheriff in 1783, mp for right of his wife, the daughter of the previous rector, Leicester, 1784-90, and was made an honorary who had bought the estate in 1769.9 freeman of Leicester in 1815. He was a huntsman Most of the justices who attended regularly for in a keen fox-hunting county, poet, painter and the rest of the period had a similar background. patron of the arts. He showed six pictures at the Among the new names between the 1800s and 1830 Royal Academy between 1795 and 1806, five was G. A. Legh Keck (d. i860), who succeeded his being on sporting subjects.6 brother at Stoughton Grange, four miles from In the 1790s the clergy outnumbered the laity at Leicester, in 1797, with an estate in Lancashire as sessions. Although a hundred years earlier, when well as in Leicestershire. He was also deputy lieu­ the county records begin, there had been no clergy tenant, elected M. P. for Leicestershire several and only lay land-owners as justices, now the grow­ times, and Lieutenant-Colonel commandant of the ing value of tithes and glebelands as food prices rose Leicestershire Regiment of yeomanry.10 There was increased the income and social standing of the also a lay member of the Burnaby family, John Dick. clergy, and their superior education helped to make Particularly prominent among the clergy was William them ideal local administrators and judges. Richardson Tyson (d. 1831), from Lancashire, a for­ Although clerical predominance was unusual, mer Fellow of Emmanuel College, who was rector of probably the result of a shortage of lay justices or Thurcaston, north of Leicester, between 1798 and an exceptional number of wealthy clergy, clerical 1831. Exceptional among the clerical justices in the justices were in a substantial minority in most other 1820s was Gilbert Beresford (1774-1843), a native of counties.7 As they came from the more well-to-do Derbyshire. Between 1819 and 1838 he was rector of clergy, the holding of more than one living was St Andrew, Holborn, said to be worth several thou­ common. Some were landowners or related to the sand pounds, while living at Aylestone.11 gentry in the county, being thus natural friends and By the 1820s gentry as distinct from clergy colleagues of the layjustices. The most important attendance at sessions had risen. As in other counties family of clergy justices attending Leicestershire there were more available gentry with population sessions at this time was that of Burnaby. Robert growth, interest injudicial and administrative work Burnaby (d. 1807) and Thomas Beaumont Burnaby was rising, and in particular the volume of business

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IX 1999 70 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 1680-1830

Figure 1. Plan of Leicester Gaol, 1686. The rooms shown on the lower part of the drawing, and on the far right, are the older buildings probably not used later as a prison. Leicester Record Office was expanding. While single justices or temporary at least one church.14 The offices were combined in committees had always been used to direct special 1819 when Kirk was also made surveyor of county tasks, there were now a standing chairman and works. In fact he had already planned the house of deputy chairman, visiting justices for the prisons, correction in 1814-15 and a new prison in 1818, and and permanent committees for bridges and finance. handled other building work.15 Finally at April The county surveyor reported regularly on the state Sessions 1823 his place was taken by William of the bridges.12 Parsons of Leicester at the same salary of £100. As Greater efficiency at sessions was matched by well as being a builder of churches and parsonages, the use of a salaried and experienced surveyor. In Parsons was surveyor for most of the Leicestershire the later eighteenth century the justices employed turnpike trusts and built the Theatre Royal in men on an ad hoc basis to act as surveyor of bridge Leicester.16 and prison works. In 1803 the county appointed William Kirk superintendant of works and repairs of all the county bridges at £25 salary with expenses. PRISON BUILDING Payment was twice increased, to £50, then to The one major prison expenditure before the £100.13 By 1808 county buildings were in the care of 1790s was the purchase and extension in 1686 of the an ‘architect for the county work’, Joshua Harrison, property long used as a county gaol on the east side who was a carpenter and builder and the architect of of High (Gross) Street in Leicester (Figs. 1-3).

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IX 1Q99 71 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 168ofeil83O

Figure 2. Plan of Leicester Gaol, 1686. Leicester Record Office

Figure 3. Plan and elevation of Leicester Gaol, 1686. Leicester Record Office

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IX 199g 72 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 1680-1830

Although paid for by the county rates, quarter to reduce the movement of prisoners. They were sessions were not responsible. The Earls of Rutland additional to one or two already existing and used and Huntingdon, both prominent in local politics, partly as parish prisons. £65 was paid to ajustice, and some leading gentry petitioned the Crown for Thomas Crane, to build a house of two rooms in letters patent to levy two fines of 1000 and 2000 Melton Mowbray about 1756. In 1760 and 1767 tiny marks on the county. £1063 was raised in this way. bridewells were erected at Market Harborough and £600 was spent on buying the gaol and £200 on Hinckley respectively. Both were built according to rebuilding part of it; most of the rest was used to pay plans accepted by the justices, for £25. The former for obtaining the grant and levying the fines. The was designed by Samuel Turner and the latter by new building was attached to the existing structure. Noble Reeve. The Hinckley building had three The latter was unlikely to have been used as a prison small rooms. In both cases payment was made ‘to any longer, probably because it could not be made some one of the principal inhabitants’ and they were secure except at substantial cost, or needed exten­ probably also used as parish lock-ups. In 1776 up to sive repairs. The outer walls of the new building £50 was paid to ajustice (Rev. Edward Cheselden) were brick, iVz feet thick. It measured 66 by 1114 for repairing and extending the Melton bridewell. feet, and 21 feet high to the wallplate. Each floor was The names of the builders of these tiny structures divided into five rooms. The dungeons were four were not recorded.22 feet underground and four feet above, the next two There is no evidence that the justices considered storeys seven and six feet high respectively, with gal­ rebuilding the gaol in the 1770s, a decade in which leries in the gabled roof.17 In the 1770s the prison many counties rebuilt either a gaol or bridewell. reformer John Howard found that the dungeon The relatively extensive accommodation built in floor was sufficient to separate felons and ordinary 1686 was probably regarded as sufficient for the debtors with day and night rooms. The extensive prisoners: debtors averaged 17 and felons only six space of the ten upper-floor rooms housed the mas­ between 1773 and 1779. The first reference to the ters’ side debtors, being those whose family or possibility of a new gaol was in 1781: counsel’s opin­ friends paid for their accommodation. There was a ion was taken as to whether the trust set up in 1686 small court for exercise and fresher air.18 Repairs could sell the prison and buy a site for a new one, were done occasionally in the eighteenth century. In and he advised that an act of parliament was need­ 1774, a year when gaol improvements were general ed. Nothing more was done until 1789, despite due to legislation, ventilators were inserted and two extensive prison building elsewhere. The general rooms added or converted for an infirmary.19 reconstruction of the 1780s was the result not only The county bridewell in Blue Boar Lane, of more prisoners on account of population growth Leicester, built before the sessions records begin in and the rising percentage of prison sentences com­ 1678, was not altered in any major way in this peri­ pared with those of transportation, but also a prison od. Large repairs were done in 1710-11, when £72 reform movement aiming to provide purpose-built 16s. 4d. was spent. Howard wrote that it had three prisons with all the necessary facilities, counties rooms below for men and three above for women. now being allowed to borrow for 14 years in order On the three dates the inmates were counted in to build.23 1775,1776 and 1779, the total was only 13.20 Repairs On 28 March 1789 the gaol was presented at the and minor improvements were made between 1778 Assizes as being in bad repair, too small and unsafe and 1781.21 for keeping its prisoners.24 After the legal notice had In the mid-eighteenth century the justices erect­ been given three times, a special adjourned sessions ed tiny houses of correction elsewhere in the county was advertised by the justices at Midsummer

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IX 1Q99 73 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 168O-183O

Sessions for 5 August, the first day of the next of plans the justices decided to offer 30 guineas for Assizes, a public occasion drawing most of the the best, 20 guineas for the next most suitable, and gentry to Leicester, ‘when we request the acting 10 guineas for the third, the plans to be ‘in the Justices, Grand Jury, and other Gentlemen of the plainest and least expensive stile, and be accompa­ said county, to attend, as the subject is of great nied with correct estimates’. The house next the importance to the county, and will be attended with gaol was to be bought.27 At Epiphany Sessions 1790 vast expense’.25 The meeting, attended by Rev. when the plans were considered, ‘amongst many Henry Greene as chairman, two baronets, eleven others by some of the most able architects that other laymen and four other clergymen, appointed drawn by Mr George Moneypenny, Architect of itself and the absentjustices a committee to inquire Derby, was fixed upon.’28 An adjourned sessions and report on the state of the gaol. The committee was held on 9 March to allow a thorough discussion reported that the gaol in its present situation was of the plan and specifications.29 At Easter Sessions, totally inadequate and that the adjoining buildings attended by Winstanley, Perkins, Loraine Smith, should be bought to provide a site for additional and Revs. Robert Burnaby and Thomas Greaves, it accommodation, which, with the plot of the present was decided to contract with Moneypenny to build gaol, would be sufficient to confine and separate the the gaol according to his proposals, plan and various classes of prisoners. Separate cells about ten specifications at £3,000. The contracting was thus feet square were to be erected for 24 felons in three not put out to tender. In the absence of a county classes, each class with a separate court and day­ surveyor, William Harrison, who had presented the room. 24 was the largest number of felons that the second-best plan, was appointed superintendant gaoler had held. 31 or 32 rooms about 12 feet square of the works at £40 a year. A building of two storeys were to be provided for debtors, with one or two was to be erected; the cells and dayrooms were prin­ dayrooms and a workshop. This proposed accom­ cipally in two rows on the ground floor, and upstairs modation was based on the fact that 62 debtors was were the debtors’ rooms and sick wards; the gaoler’s the greatest number that the prison had confined. A house was an altered part of the old building. The local architect, William Harrison, said that the cost structure was of brick except for the facade of the would not exceed £15,000. They thought that a gaol gaoler’s house (part of the front elevation), which ‘constructed on the principles by which the morals, was in Attleborough stone.30 The bricks were made the security, and the health of the prisoners may be locally, the internal woodwork as usual consisted of effectually consulted, is indispensably necessary for deals and firs imported from Scandinavia, and the the county of Leicestershire’, despite ‘the largeness stones were brought about 20 miles. of the sum that appears necessary for attaining it’; One of Moneypenny’s first tasks was to employ the cost would ‘fall so lightly on individuals, if the a number of local masons to work the stone for the requisite sum is borrowed on the security of the facade. Another Derbyshire builder, a carpenter county rates, and paid off in the course of fourteen named George Sowter, who acted as surety for years by instalments’.26 This was clearly an ideal Moneypenny, may have done part of the work on scheme, putting into practice fully the principles of sub-contract or by informal agreement.31 There is the prison reform movement. no other evidence about the way in which Presumably on account of the cost, the Moneypenny organised the building. Nor can the Michaelmas Sessions scaled down the proposal, allocation of charges among the crafts be traced, advertising for plans to house 16 felons and 30 though William Harrison, in suggesting a brick debtors, involving the alteration, repair and enlarge­ framework with a total price of £5,256, estimated as ment of the present building. To get a good choice follows:-

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IX 1999 74 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 1680-1830

bricklayer £1,978 Building itself; to the easy intercourse during the mason £243 day between the male and female prisoners; but carpenter andjoiner £1,173 also, to the total want of all compulsory labour slater and plasterer £640 whatsoever’37 Epiphany Sessions 1803 appointed plumber and glazier £379 a committee to execute the plans and specification ironmonger £440 which had been presented by William Oldham, a painter £25 Leicester architect, without prior advertisement. (unforeseen) £478 Oldham presented the alternatives of altering and adding to the existing bridewell for £600, or the sale Thus the exterior framework cost more than two- of the present building for £850 and the erection of fifths of the total cost, and the woodwork less than a a new one behind the county gaol at £1,280. The quarter of it.32 The property cost at least £1,700 on second proposal was chosen, not so much because account of its central situation and the house, the it was cheaper, but on account of‘the superior con­ money being borrowed on mortgage from the venience and aptitude it possesses for the purpose Leicester bankers, Boultbee and Mansfield. An intended; to the additional strength and security architect named Norris checked the finished struc­ that it will give to the gaol; and above all to the ease ture. Moneypenny received £4,150 on his contract with which the future internal regulations of the and for extras, and the total charge was a little over prison may be formed, by the possibility of entrust­ £6,000.33 The relatively cheap total cost was the ing the safe custody of those confined in either result of the use of existing buildings, the smaller prison to the gaoler’. The justices contracted with accommodation, and probably of the layout, which Oldham for £1,390, and he received an additional was more cramped than in prisons designed by £40 4s.iod. for extras. The two-story building was Blackburn. Despite this possible criticism of the erected in 1803 and 1804, including men and interior, the prison writer James Neild in 1812 women’s courts, dayrooms, workshops, sickrooms described ‘the noble front’ as having ‘a prison­ and 13 cells.38 An additional building of three cells like appearance. The ingenious architect, Mr and a large workroom was erected in 1809 for £640. Moneypenny, has shown his knowledge of grand It was planned and built by Joshua Harrison, then design bordering on the terrifick’, and he thought ‘the architect for the county work’.39 the courts at least were ‘airy’.34 The buildings of 1803 and 1809 were soon con­ The old house of correction in Leicester was sidered unsatisfactory, presumably on account of still used. No action is recorded about implement­ their size and a growing number of prisoners. This ing the act of 1782 for classing and employing pris­ was in spite of the use of the Melton bridewell. At oners in bridewells, despite its general use in other Epiphany Sessions 1813 it was decided to discuss counties.35 At Michaelmas Sessions 1802 a commit­ the internal management of the bridewell at the next tee, which included Clement Winstanley, C. L. meeting, and in April a committee was appointed to Smith and the clergy Greaves and Tyson, was set up consider its state. In October the report was to consider its imperfect state.36 Its printed report ordered to be printed, and the Chairman of states in some detail the motives of the justices and Sessions and the two visitingjustices of the house of their reasons for deciding to build a bridewell. They correction were authorised to employ persons to wrote that it did not conform to the various statutes make plans and estimates of what alterations and about houses of correction such as that of 1782. additions they might think necessary in the present ‘They would wish to call the attention of the Court, bridewell, and to lay them before the Court. At this not only to the insecurity and insufficiency of the Session the legal procedure was begun by ajustice

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IX 1999 75 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • C d UNT Y B UILD IN G IN L EI C E S T E RS HI RE, 16 8 OJMlSg 0

presenting the house of correction as insufficient, or, with a man paid to supervise the bricklayers. He inconvenient and inadequate for keeping, separat­ also received £30 for his plans and specifications.45 ing and employing the inmates pursuant to the act The other wing was ordered to be built by the con­ of 1782.40 At the Epiphany Sessions 1814 the justices tractors for £1,500 in July 1816. Thus t;he justices had notice given of the presentment and of their finally erected a bridewell which was temporarily intention to consider it at the next Sessions. This more than sufficient for the present number of pris­ enabled them to make a decision either to improve oners. The final amount due on the contract and the existing bridewell or to build a new one at the this extra wing (£7,090) was ordered to be paid in Easter Sessions. The committee was asked to obtain March 1818, and they also received £855 7s. lod. for a plan and estimate for a new house of correction more works. With the land and the surveyor’s distinct from the gaol, and outside Leicester.41 charges the total cost was probably nearly £9,500. At Easter the Court decided that it was absolutely Thejustices also provided a corn mill to be worked necessary either to amend and enlarge the existing by the prisoners. John and Richard Orridge, the for­ premises, or to build a new prison on a separate site, mer being governor of the Bury St Edmunds goal in if possible outside the town. The plans and esti­ Suffolk, were paid £30 to come to advise on the con­ mates for both a new house of correction and for struction, and the mill with its machinery was erect­ altering the present one were to be left in the office ed in 1818 for £472, with bricks costing £132 more.46 of the Clerk for the justices to inspect. They were Works continued on the house of correction submitted by William Kirk of Great Wigston, the through the 1820s. Mortin and Harrison were paid a surveyor of the county bridges, who was by this date few hundred pounds for erecting a structure to con­ also looking after county buildings.42 At the July tain the prisoner’s cart, pillory and hanging appara­ Sessions the justices decided to build a new house tus under an agreement of 27 April 1822.47 At this of correction on a site in the parish of St Mary, near time attention was given not only to prisoners’ secu­ the Infirmary. Kirk’s plan and elevations for a prison rity, diet and moral welfare, but also to hard labour. to hold 80 people were adopted and he was asked to A building with as many as four treadwheels side by prepare specifications. Tenders were to be sought side (so they could be supervised) was erected in by advertisement. In October they were received 1824-25, the number reflecting the rising number of from Joshua Vinrace, a builder of Ashby de la inmates. The structure by Henry Clay and John Zouch who constructed at least 11 county bridges Mortin cost £425 and the treadwheels by Messrs between 1809 and 1826, from William Bradley of Wilson £75°- After a prisoner escaped over the Leicester, J. Smith of Stamford, a Birmingham outer wall in daylight in 1825 UP to £200 was spent builder, Edward Jackson, and from two Leicester on topping the wall with big slates covered by builders in partnership, Joshua Harrison (who had loose bricks, following the example of the designed and erected the 1809 bridewell extension) Cambridgeshire prison. In 1829-30 up to £300 and Ellis Mortin, a Leicester architect, stonemason was voted for another treadwheel, as numbers rose and builder.43 Thejustices had second thoughts further, and flagging the wards by John Mortin cost about the size of the building, and decided in April more than £300.48 1815 to postpone the erection of the right wing. In 1816 the Court also decided to build a house £1,500 was therefore deducted from the successful of correction at Loughborough to hold persons tender of Harrison and Mortin, and the contract committed by the local justices for examination signed at £5,590.44 £1,333 10s.was paid for the land. before they were sent to the gaol. In July a committee Kirk was appointed to superintend the building at ofjustices of the hundred was appointed to procure 7s. per day in addition to his salary as bridge survey­ a plan and estimate of the building, reporting

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IXI999 76 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 168O-183O at the next sessions, and the matter came up again and making secure the debtors’ part of the gaol.54 at Epiphany Sessions 1817.49 It then appears to The passing of the Gaol Act concerning the have been dropped until 1823 when Michaelmas classification and separation of prisoners in 1823 led Sessions ordered that the plan for building on a to the state of the county prison being considered chosen site in Loughborough be referred to the again. In January 1824 the gaoler and visiting justices County Surveyor for inspection and approval. The reported on the condition of the gaol under the pro­ site was bought for £270 and in April 1824 notice visions of the act, that it was ‘inconvenient insecure was given that the justices intended to contract for a and insufficient for the due keeping and separating four-cell building according to specifications which the several persons therein confined, and for sup­ Parsons supplied. The contract was awarded at the plying them with proper day rooms and night cells, lowest tender of £384 to two Loughborough men, and that the said gaol is wholly inadequate to give William Hack and William North, though the cost effect to the rules and regulations prescribed by the was at least £496.50 said act.’ The visitingjustices were to look out for a Sessions were still using the small bridewells or site for a new gaol, and to contract to buy it if they lock-ups. In 1824 Hinckley parish wanted the situa­ thought fit.55 tion of its bridewell altered and its enlargement, but The proceedings of the following months are a an adjourned sessions on 15 May, after considering little confusing, as the quarter sessions order books Parsons’s report, decided that scheme was too cost­ do not provide a full record. In May an adjourned ly and dismissed it. When application was made at Sessions ordered the visitingjustices to buy a plot Epiphany Sessions 1826, probably by Ashby de la in the South Fields belonging to the Corporation, Zouch parish, for a new prison there to hold and on 16 July the Leicester Journal announced that offenders before they were committed to the gaol or ‘the ground is staked out on the Welford Road, Leicester house of correction, the justices agreed to for the erection of a new County Gaol’.56 Yet in pay half of the cost, or up to £200 for the purpose.51 October the justices had clearly not finally decided The use of these minor bridewells by sessions in on a new site. Notices of the intention of the justices conjunction with parishes was unusual from the to consider the state of the gaol at the next Sessions later eighteenth century. were ordered in January, May and September. In The insecure state of the county gaol built in the July the County Surveyor, William Parsons, was early 1790s, perhaps because of cells on the ground ordered to provide a plan for the October Sessions floor, was referred to a committee at the time of the to consider.57 In October the Court, chaired by completion of the new house of correction in April Legh Keck, decided that ‘the present county gaol 1817, when the possibility of using it as a gaol seems being on mature enquiry and consideration found to have occurred to the justices.52 A year later Kirk to be insecure and inefficient, it is the unanimous was asked to prepare for the next sessions a plan of a opinion of the Court, that a new gaol must be erect­ new gaol consisting of a keeper’s house and up to ed, or the present gaol enlarged and made efficient. six wards; he was to estimate the probable cost A committee open to all countyjustices was using the materials of the present gaol, and also the appointed to consider plans and take other neces­ likely value of the site and materials of the present sary steps, to meet six times at the County Public gaol in case they were sold.53 At the July Sessions Office up to January 1825.58 Kirk was asked to find a new site as a possible alter­ The committee at its first meeting on 27 October native for the existing one. The matter of a new gaol directed Parsons to prepare a plan of the premises was then dropped for several years, although the adjoining the gaol which might be bought, to esti­ visitors were asked to spend up to £500 in altering mate their value, and that of the existing buildings,

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IX 1999 77 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 168O-183O

so that the justices might decide whether to buy had a ‘handsome castellated facade in the ancient new site or build additional accommodation to be style of English architecture’.60 attached to the old gaol. The committee also decided At the meeting of the committee on 8 January that the new gaol should be able to hold 35 debtors, 1825 the justices approved the recommendation of 20 female prisoners, 65 male prisoners, three soli­ Parsons that the different works be let out under a tary or condemned inmates, two King’s evidence measure contract, the quantities being ascertained prisoners, and six sick, a total of 131. This scale of as the works proceeded. His comments make an numbers would appear to have been less than that in interesting contribution to a subject which was the the plan drawn by Parsons for the October cause of lively contemporary debate among archi­ Sessions. On 10 October the committee resolved tects and building contractors.61 The advantages against extending the existing gaol because of the compared to a single contract for a fixed sum was cost of the purchase of the adjoining premises (at that it allowed the justices to make any alterations least £15,513), and the fact that the space (7,433 and improvements in the progress of the works yards) would still be insufficient. The County without the great inconvenience involved in altering Surveyor was directed to prepare a plan for a new the contract in a work of this magnitude. He found gaol for 131 inmates, with an estimate. On 24 that there were great disadvantages in a contract for November the committtee finally decided to take a a fixed sum ‘for large buildings of an unusual char- new site of over three acres, being the ground con­ acter and description, viz, the Custom House which tracted with the Corporation earlier. The County was so altered and varied from the contract by con­ Surveyor was to advertise for contracts for the sup­ stant additions and improvements that the whole of ply of bricks for building, to be delivered between 1 the work was obliged to be measured and left to a May and 31 October 1825. The Surveyor having value price and the contract abandoned.... By a found that the number of cells needed for 35 contract for quantities the work is equally put into debtors and 65 male prisoners would not fit his competition and there is always a greater anxiety plan, the committee opted for buildings extended at and willingness on the part of the contractor to do each end to contain 39 debtors and 70 male prison­ his work in the best style because he is satisfied that ers. At January Sessions 1825 the prison was formal­ he has his price for the quantity he gives, which in a ly presented as ‘inconvenient, insecure and general contract let him make his estimate ever so insufficient for the due keeping, separating and carefully, he is not’. Worcestershire and Rutland employing the prisoners’, and wholly inadequate to county gaols had been built in this way without give effect to the rules and regulations of the 1823 inconvenience, and the Derbyshire prison was Act; the place was improper and a new gaol needed being erected by this method.62 on a different site. This was accepted and the Court At Easter Sessions building was ordered to be approved Parsons’s last scheme, the third series of started, using the conditions and specifications for plans which he had drawn, and contracts for the works submitted by Parsons. Sevenjustices (includ­ supply of bricks with a Leicester bricklayer and two ing Keck and Tyson) were appointed a committee to Leicester builders in partnership.59 The final see to the works, meeting on alternate Wednesdays, scheme comprised eight wards round a central gov­ conferring with the County Surveyor, with full ernor’s house, with a chapel over the house commu- power to take such steps as necessary in receiving nicatiing by bridges with the upper stories of the proposals, making contracts and engaging work­ wards. The wards included day-rooms, work-rooms men. Parsons was ordered to contract for the stone, and airing yards as well as cells. According to a con­ which, like the bricks, was to be obtained under a temporary, the topographer Samuel Lewis, the front separate contract, and to proceed immediately in

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IX 1999 78 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 168O-183O levelling the site. The Clerk was ordered to adver­ £30,000 came from the Exchequer Loan tise for tenders for the different types of work. The Commissioners, who lent for several new prisons in tenders were chosen on 7 May and 8 June. One of the 1820’s. A Leicestershire clergyman lent £6,000 the two firms supplying bricks, William Earl and as the first loan in October 1825, and seven women Samuel Groocock, builders, won the contract for supplied a total of£10,400. On account ofits the brickwork. Separate craftsmen supplied the security and the automatic payment of interest, a stone and undertook the stonemasonry, carpentry, loan to a quarter sessions was regarded as an attrac­ plumbing and glazing and the ironwork. Stones tive investment for a woman. The justices anticipated came from Mountsorrel six miles away, two quarries that the debt would be liquidated by continuing the near Chesterfield in Derbyshire (by canal), and existing quarterly rate of 1V2 in the pound.64 At last paving slabs from Yorkshire (also by water). Joshua Leicestershire had a gaol which conformed to the Harrison won the carpentry contract, and also bid best contemporary standards. unsuccessfully for the bricklaying, slating and plas­ tering, the mason’s work and the plumbing, glazing and painting. It is not clear whether part of these works would have been sub-contracted, or whether THE SHIRE HALL Harrison had all the various craftsmen in his As a shire hall the justices used the Castle in employ. The second is certainly possible by the Leicester, which was leased from the duchy of 1820’s, in a large provincial town. Another builder, Lancaster. Built about 1150, it has been described as Joseph Swann, was prepared also to contract for ‘the oldest surviving aisled and bay-divided hall in most of the work: he bid unsuccessfully for the Europe’.65 When the traveller Celia Fiennes visited bricklaying, masonry, carpentry and joinery, and the Leicester in 1698 she found the front of the Castle glazing and painting. The contracts for prices with­ was newly built ‘all of brick’.66 As there is no record out specifying the amount of work enabled the jus­ of expenditure on it in the sessions records begin­ tices to alter the prices in 1827; at Easter Sessions ning in 1678 the facade was probably built by the Harrison’s proposal for an increase in the carpentry subscriptions of Leicestershire gentry and other prices was accepted, and the ironfounders were local people as in several other counties.67 allowed to continue on tendering reduced prices.63 Minor repairs and changes were made during After the completion of the prison five justices the eighteenth century. The first major attempt to (including Rev. Gilbert Beresford) reported on the improve the Assize accommodation seems to have accounts in January 1829. The total cost waas been in 1808, when the justices were told at Easter £59,574. This included £4,460 for the site, £3,021 Sessions that the civil or ‘nisi prius’ and criminal or for Parson’s fee at five percent and the salary to the ‘crown side’ courts and the grand jury rooms were Clerk of the Works, and £3,407 for fixtures and fur­ very incommodious and inconvenient. The Clerk nishings and miscellaneous expenditure. A large was to apply to Harrison ‘the architect for the coun­ part of the cost of the actual building (£48,686) was ty work’ for a plan and specification to improve the brick and stonework; the stone and stonema­ them. But nothing seems to have been done.68 In sonry cost £19,683 and the bricks and bricklayers’ October 1819 the Clerk was ordered to advertise in work £14,120, compared with only £4,924 on timber the Leicester Journal for plans and estimates for and the carpentry andjoinery. The figures suggest altering and remodelling the courts. Next sessions the great use of stone, though it was often more the three plans received were referred to the visiting expensive than bricks, and the minimal use of wood justices of the gaol and house of correction, to for interior work. £54,000 was borrowed, of which consider which should be used. In July 1820 Joshua

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IX 1999 79 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 168O-183O

Harrison and Ellis Mortin were awarded the work THE JUDGES’ LODGINGS for altering the courts on a measure basis. Under pressure from the judges Leicestershire Altogether they recieved £1,916 3s. for the tasks decided to follow the example of several other which were done mainly in 1821.69 Ample space was counties and provide a new judges’ lodgings. At provided in the hall of the Castle for assizes and Lent Assizes 1817 the Grand Jury drew the attention quarter sessions, the courts being arranged so as not of the justices to the inconvenience of the existing to interfere with each other by the destruction of the accommodation (which was too small, and hired), wooden arcades and the insertion of high wooden and recommended the buying of a house suitably partitions.70 Leicestershire justices thus avoided fitted up. The justices themselves wanted a perma­ the expense of a large and ornate new building, nent office for their growing business, the result of which other counties erected at this time. the rise in the population of the county, and needed a record office. In April 1817 the Sessions appointed a committee to meet at the Hotel, a building owned by a group of subscribers who were unable to make LUNATIC ASYLUMS it pay, to inspect its state and, if convenient, to treat Sessions were given permissory powers to provide for its purchase. In July the Court approved the pauper lunatic asylums under an act of 1808, which buying of the Hotel for £3,150, and appointed a reflected an increasingly humane approach to mad­ committee to meet there to have the roof repaired ness at this time. The matter was discussed in 1816, and make any alterations and improvements so as to when the old house of correction was becoming make it suitable for the judges by the next Lent vacant, and after fresh legislation in 1829. However, Assizes. To confirm the legality of their expenditure Leicestershire was among the majority of counties of rates, the justices obtained an act. It gave them which did not establish an asylum before 1830.71 the right to borrow £7,000. Half of this loan went on the purchase of the Hotel and expenses of the act (£450). At Easter Sessions 1818 it was decided that no more than £1,500 should be spent on repairs and alterations, nor more than £1,500 on furniture. The committee appointed Joshua Harrison to estimate the repairs and alterations set forth in the specifications already provided by him, and then to superintend the repairs. He obtained the main con­ tract, receiving £1,628 13s. 4d. out of the total pay­ ment for building works of £2,037 5s. presumably mostly for carpentry; half the rest went tothe plumber, Lang, and there were smaller payments to the mason, Kirk, the bridge surveyor (£7613s. 2d.), Oldfield, the painter (£5410s. 6d.), and Cort the ironmonger (£46 8s. 4d.). Bills for furniture totalled £1,59215s. 7d. Of the £7,000, £5,000 was borrowed from the Clerk, Thomas Freer.72

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IX 1099 80 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 1680-1830

Figure 4. Joseph Vinrace, plan and elevation of Harris’s Bridge, 1809. Leicester Record Office

BRIDGES For most of the eighteenth century sessions did tolerable state. They were durable, being mostly occasional small repairs to the bridges for which it stone, some dating from the Middle Ages. was responsible, and made grants for work on non­ Expenditure on bridges by the justices began county bridges, both types of expenditure normally to be sizeable from the 1780s. As elsewhere the num­ costing up to £20. In response to commercial ber of county bridges was growing; it was probably growth from the 1750’3 landowners who levied tolls, less than a dozen in the early and mid-eighteenth groups of subscribers and turnpike trusts which century, and 28 in 1824. In the 1780s and 1790s there charged for the use of roads, as is well-known, built, were six bridge works costing at least several hun­ rebuilt and widened bridges.73 Yet sessions were dred pounds. They included by far the biggest not involved in larger works, as they were in other bridge undertaking before the 1830s, the rebuilding counties in the later 1760s and 1770s.74 Presumably of Sunday bridge, Leicester in 1795, a stone struc­ as sessions were spending on other matters, includ­ ture 231 feet long by 24% feet wide within the para­ ing the tiny bridewells, the county bridges were in a pet walls. Altogether in the constant prices of the

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IXI999 81 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN I- COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 1680-1830

Leicestershire Bridge Works, 1779-1830

Date Bridge Expenditure by Leics Constant prices of 1750s Source £ £ 1758 Kegworth [c. 100] V.C.H. Leics. 111,82 1779 Witherley 150 134 QS 5/1/5 (5 Oct. 1779) 1784 Kegworth 350 297 QS 5/1/6 (‘repair’) (11Jan. 1785) 1787-8 Fielden 500 424 QS 5/1/6 (10/7/97, 2/10/87, 7/10/88) 1790 Zouch 350 297 QS 30/2/1 (700 contract shared wi th Nottinghamshire) 1792 Braunstone Gate 255 185 QS iu/1/3 1795-6 Fielden 244 161 QS iu/1/3 1795-96 Sunday 2407 1584 qs 30/2/4, (£2045 contract shared with Corporation) m/1/3 1801-02 North 1076 2S. 480 Qs in/1/3 (repaired and rebuilt) 1809 Harris’s 441 170 Qs m/1/3 1810 Welham 259 100 qs 111/1/3,30/2/6 (£482 contract shared with Northamptonshire) 1810 Bensford 401 154 QS 111/1/3, 6/2/1 (£550 contract shared with Warwickshire) 1811 Ratcliffe Culey 769 6s. 285 QS in/1/3 1814 Harborough 59710s. 221 QS 112/190-5 (£900 contract shared with Northamptonshire) 1819 Lewin 750 (contract) 300 QS 30/2/12 1820 Burton 770 (contract) 308 QS 30/2/14 1820 Medbourne 300 120 QS 30/2/13 (£600 contract shared with Northamptonshire) 1821 St. Mary’s 420 179 QS 30/2/15 (£840 contract shared with Northamptonshire) 1821 Cossington 1450 (contract) 620 QS 30/2/16 1822 Eye Kettleby, 1287 (contract) 550 QS 30/2/21 Melton 1826 Stoney 319 (contract) 144 QS 30/2/21 1829 Crow Mill 249 10s. (contract) 113 QS 30/2/22

Prices stated are the costs in contemporary money, and those prices adjusted to the building costs of the 1750s. Between the 1750s and 1820s building charges rose two or three times, the adjusted prices are based on contemporary wage data, the rising costs of imported timber, and changing brick prices.

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IX 1999 82 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 1680-1830

1750s 21 bridges were rebuilt or repaired at a cost of bridge for Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire in over £100 between 1779 and 1830,10 of them being 1790 and the larger North bridge in 1795. Joseph in the 1810s and 1820s. But none of the latter works Vinrace, a builder of Ashby de la Zouch, was were large, the most expensive bridge (in the prices responsible for at least nine stone and brick bridges, of the 1750s) being the five-arched Cossington including the stone bridge at Melton in 1822, bridge in 1823 (£620). The width of these described as ‘the finest example of his work’, a two- Leicestershire bridges varied considerably. Zouch arch bridge at Ratcliffe Culey (1811), and the four- bridge, (167 feet long) was only 16 feet wide and the arch stone-faced bridge near Medbourne (1822). tiny 60 foot Harris’s bridge of one arch was 18 feet The Leicester builder Ellis Mortin handled five wide in the centre (Fig. 4). Others were broad bridges, the biggest being the Cossington bridge.75 enough to allow two carriages or waggons to pass in All three, and especially Mortin, were paid smaller the middle, such as the Eye Kettleby bridge, which sums periodically for repairs, which were not adver­ was about 27 feet wide. Three builders won most of tised, suggesting a preference for craftsmen with a the contracts, which were usually advertised, as known record.76 Although until the 1780s county required by an act of 1739. John Cheshire, a builder expenditure on all kinds of building work was tiny, of Over Whitacre, Warwickshire, erected Zouch it then began to grow markedly.

BRIDGE AND TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURE, I792-183O.77

Date Bridge costs Total county charges Percentage

1792-1800 £2,912 £22,742 12.8

1801-10 £2,947 £34,533 8.5

1811-20 £6,240 £85,793 7-3

1821-30 £12,046 £185,939 6.5

The proportion of bridge expenditure out ot total have cost about £240,000, considering that 1,608 county charges would be much higher in 1811-20 and houses were added at a suggested average price of £150 1821-30 if the cost of prison building is omitted. per house.79 Thus the cost of the gaol was about one It is also interesting to consider the cost of the new quarter of the expenditure on housing, and if the prison in the 1820s. The structure was by far the most charges of the house of correction works and that of the expensive public building in Leicester before the church are added, public buildings cost about a third 1840s. The next most costly building was St Margaret’s of the price of the dwellings. The expenditure on the parish church in 1826, at £14,964.78 In urban England prisons was about one-third of total county outlay in as a whole public buildings cost about ten per cent or a this decade, and if bridge charges are added the figure little more of the price of house building in the 1820s. rises to about two-fifths. Altogether expenditure on Leicester’s new housing between 1821 and 1831 may building by sessions reached a peak in the 1820s.

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IXI999 83 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • C O UNT Y B UI L D IN G IN L EI C E S T E RS H I RE, 16 8OS--183 0

APPENDIX80 Building expenses incurred on the Gaol and Leicester House of Correction, 1801-30

Years Gaol House of Correction Years Gaol House of Correction £ £ £ £ 1801 191 110 1816 210 3308 1802 180 116 1817 371 3252 1803 116 652 1818 261 1599 1804 120 268 1819 290 1407 1805 104 26 1820 260 49 1806 86 49 1821 480 371 1807 110 60 1822 370 295 1808 78 5i 1823 317 587 1809 117 756 1824 203 142 1810 169 91 1825 310 620 1811 273 127 1826 9A74 732 1812 517 197 1827 18,509 1134 1813 561 235 1828 16,166 411 1814 315 1074 1829 16,323 408 1815 360 2255 1830 1,396 891

Figures are given here to the nearest pound. They include repairs as well as new building. Maintenance on the gaol cost about £120 annually in the 1800s and over £300 in the 1810s; repairs to the house of correction cost about £70 in the 1800s and about £120 in the 1810s. One cannot distinguish building and repairs after 1823.

NOTES

1 P. Deane and W.E. Cole, British Economic Growth 9 Nichols, op. cit., iv, Part 1,60-61. 1688-1959, Cambridge, 1964,103. 10 J. Burke and J. B. Burke, A Genealogical and Heraldic 2 Leicestershire Record Office (hereafter lro) Quarter Dictionary of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain and Sessions (hereafter qs), 5/1/7,5/1/8; references in qs Ireland, 1, London, 1847,664; lro qs 6/2/1. records may be found from the date in the text where no 11 Venn, op. cit.-, W. Cobbett, Rural Rides n, London 1893, page or date but only the volume number is stated in 348-49- these notes. 12 LRO QS 6/2/1. 3 J. Nichols, The History and Antiquities of the County of 13 lro QS 5/1/9 (12 July 1803), QS 111/1/3 (2 October 1810), Leicester, iv Part 11, London, 1811,619-20. QS 112/223 (1820). 4 Nichols, op. cit., 846-47. 14 LRO QS 5/1/9 (26 April 1808). 5 Nichols, op. cit., iv, Part 1.1810,158; Victoria History of 15 LRO QS 6/2/1 (12 July 1819). the County of Leicester (hereafter V. C.H Leics.), n, 16 lro qs 6/2/1 (7 April 1823); V. C.HLeics., m, 83. London, 1954,222-23. 17 LRO QS 32/3/2. 6 V. C.H. Leics., in, London, 1955,220. 18 J. Howard, The State of the Prisons in England and 7 lro QS 5/1/7,5/1/85 6/1/2,6/1/3; C.W Chalklin,English Wales, 2nd. edition, Warrington, 1780,270. Counties and Public Building, 1650-1830, London and 19 LRO QS 5/1/3 fol. 4,5/1/5 fol. 17, 5/1/7 fol. 24- Rio Grande, 1998,31-32. 20 lro qs 6/1/3 p.139; Howard, op. cit.,272. 8 Nichols, op. cit.,111,Part 1,1800,237-, J. A. Venn, Alumni 21 lro QS 5/1/5 (i4july 1778, njanuary 1780,10July 1781). Cantabrigienses, 11, Cambridge, 1944, lro qs 5/1/6 fol. 22 LRO QS 5/1/3 fols. 32,58, fol. 35; 5/1/5 fol. 43; Howard, 48,5/1/7 fol. 90. op. cit., 272.

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IXI999 8.4 CHRISTOPHER CHALKLIN • COUNTY BUILDING IN LEICESTERSHIRE, 1680-1830

23 lro qs 32/3/4; Howard, op. cit.,270; Chalklin, op. cit., 149. 54 LJ,2 April 1824. 24 lro QS 32/3/5. 55 lro QS 32/2/1. 25 The Leicester Journal (hereafter LJ), 17 July 1789. 56 LRO QS 32/2/1. 26 lro QS 32/3/7. 57 S. Lewis, Topgraphical Dictionary of England, in, 27 lj, 16 October 1789. London, 1831,52. 28 lj, 15 January 1790. 58 LRO QS 32/2/1. 29 lj, 19 February 1790. 59 lro 32/2/1. 30 lro QS 32/3/3,32/3/9• 60 Lewis, op.cit., 52. 31 LJ, 16 April 1790. 61 lro qs 6/2/1. 32 LRO QS 32/3/3/8. 62 lro qs 32/3/15/2. 33 LRO QS 32/1/1, 5/1/7, Hl/1/3. 63 LRO QS 6/2/1,32/2/1. 34 J. Neild, The General State of the Prisons, London, 1812, 64 LRO QS 6/2/1,32/2/1. 337- 65 J. Simmons, Leicester Past and Present: Volume I, 35 LRO QS 5/1/5, 5/1/6. Ancient Borough to i860, London, 1974,24. 36 LRO QS 5/1/9. 66 Simmons, op. cit., 99. 37 LRO QS 5/1/9,32/3/10. 67 Chalklin, op. cit., 135. 38 LRO QS 5/1/9,32/3/10,32/3/11; Neild, op. cit.,337. 68 lro qs 5/1/9. 39 LRO QS 5/1/9, 6/2/1. 69 lro qs 6/2/1. 40 LRO QS 6/2/1,32/3/12/1. 70 Simmons, op. cit., 23-24. 41 LRO QS 6/2/1. 71 lro qs 5/1/9,6/2/1; Chalklin, op. cit., chapter xi. 42 LRO QS 32/3/12/6. 72 lro QS 25/1/3,25/1/6. 43 lro qs 32/3/12/6,30/2; Neild, op.cit.,336. 73 V. C.H. Leics.,111,81-90. 44 LRO QS 32/3/12/l,32/3/12/4- 74 Chalklin, op. cit., 115. 45 LRO QS 32/3/12/2. 75 see sources in text. 46 lro qs 6/2/1,30/2/19,32/3/12; J. D. Bennett,Leicestershire 76 lro qs 111/1/3, 112/185-230; throughout the period ses­ Architects 1700-1850, Leicester, 1968, unpaginated. sions also repaired the Magazine in Leicester, of which 47 lro QS 32/3/13; Parliamentary Papers, 1832, xxxi. the gatehouse remains, which stored militia equipment. 48 lro QS 6/2/1; Parliamentary Papers, 1832, xxxi. 77 Parliamentary Papers, 1825, xi, and 1833, xxxn. 49 lro qs 6/2/1. 78 Lewis, op. cit., 53. 50 lro qs 6/2/1,32/3/14; LJ, 7 May 1824,22 April 1825. 79 Simmons, op. cit., 184; C.W. Chalklin, The Provincial 51 lro qs 6/2/1. Towns of Georgian England: A Study of the Building 52 lro qs 6/2/1; LJ, 2 April 1824. Process 1740-1820, London, 1974,309. 53 lro 6/2/1; LJ, 16 July, 10 September, 22 October 1824. 80 Parliamentary Papers, 1831, xv, and 1825,vi.

THE GEORGIAN GROUP JOURNAL VOLUME IX 1999 85